Fran

A lot of blather has been spoken about fuel watch. It's a classic
excursion into populism, into being seen as doing something for the
common folk when in your heart of hearts you can do bugger all. Both
sides of politics are in a weird kind of auction to see which of them
can be more in touch with the problems of the common man, when neither
of them can be. This is the government we're talking about. One side
is in power and the other wants to be.

Repeated inquiries into petrol retailing have shown that in the major
capital cities at least, there is ample competition. Retail margins
are on average, about 4 cents per litre, which, even when petrol was a
lot less -- about a dollar per litre -- not unreasonable. Retailing
petrol requires investment in quite expensive to set up and maintain
infrastructure. Because it's a hazardous material, there's extensive
and expensive safety and environmental compliance -- and rightly so.
There's also considerable public liability. Running petrol pumps totes
up a power bill. So even though turnover is considerable, 4 cents per
litre doesn't sound unfair to me, especially when you consider that
many motorists pay be credit card.

So the most one could hope fuel watch to achieve in terms of prices is
to force margins down by some fraction of that 4 cents per litre. It
has to be quite a bit less than that because at some point, it simply
won't be possible to support the retailing overheads and the retailer
will have to get out of the business. So at most it can force prices
down to the point where the retailer thinks it will be marginally less
expensive to him/her to keep trading than to cease. If a lot of
traders go out of business, retail margins may improve, forcing up
prices.

So the principal benefit to the motorist probably isn't going to be
cheaper prices. More likely it will be a shorter wait to get petrol at
the effective mean price during the cycle. Few people like queueing
for petrol and this process is itself wasteful of petrol. Everybody
(except the oil companies) loses in this scenario.

In the long run of course, what has to happen is a move to a transport
system less dependent on crude oil. More diverse, better and extensive
non-petrol-based transport has to be provided and people have to use
it. We have to start increasing population densities in the suburbs
rather than doing more urban sprawl. We also ought to get cracking
with biofuels (no pun intended). We have masses of marginal land with
waste biomass on it that we could use. We have sugar cane. We could
raise algae. In the long run, this is what has to happen, but its 2020
summit notwithstanding, the government really can't get past the next
week of headlines.

Fran

Lu R

"Fran" <Fran.Beta@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8f060e95-f730-40db-921f-318518745c2f@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>A lot of blather has been spoken about fuel watch. It's a classic
> excursion into populism, into being seen as doing something for the
> common folk when in your heart of hearts you can do bugger all. Both
> sides of politics are in a weird kind of auction to see which of them
> can be more in touch with the problems of the common man, when neither
> of them can be. This is the government we're talking about. One side
> is in power and the other wants to be.
>
> Repeated inquiries into petrol retailing have shown that in the major
> capital cities at least, there is ample competition. Retail margins
> are on average, about 4 cents per litre, which, even when petrol was a
> lot less -- about a dollar per litre -- not unreasonable. Retailing
> petrol requires investment in quite expensive to set up and maintain
> infrastructure. Because it's a hazardous material, there's extensive
> and expensive safety and environmental compliance -- and rightly so.
> There's also considerable public liability. Running petrol pumps totes
> up a power bill. So even though turnover is considerable, 4 cents per
> litre doesn't sound unfair to me, especially when you consider that
> many motorists pay be credit card.
>
> So the most one could hope fuel watch to achieve in terms of prices is
> to force margins down by some fraction of that 4 cents per litre. It
> has to be quite a bit less than that because at some point, it simply
> won't be possible to support the retailing overheads and the retailer
> will have to get out of the business. So at most it can force prices
> down to the point where the retailer thinks it will be marginally less
> expensive to him/her to keep trading than to cease. If a lot of
> traders go out of business, retail margins may improve, forcing up
> prices.
>
> So the principal benefit to the motorist probably isn't going to be
> cheaper prices. More likely it will be a shorter wait to get petrol at
> the effective mean price during the cycle. Few people like queueing
> for petrol and this process is itself wasteful of petrol. Everybody
> (except the oil companies) loses in this scenario.
>
> In the long run of course, what has to happen is a move to a transport
> system less dependent on crude oil. More diverse, better and extensive
> non-petrol-based transport has to be provided and people have to use
> it. We have to start increasing population densities in the suburbs
> rather than doing more urban sprawl. We also ought to get cracking
> with biofuels (no pun intended). We have masses of marginal land with
> waste biomass on it that we could use. We have sugar cane. We could
> raise algae. In the long run, this is what has to happen, but its 2020
> summit notwithstanding, the government really can't get past the next
> week of headlines.
>
> Fran

Sorry but I dont agree with even MORE higher density housing. If I wanted to
live in Hong Kong Id move there..NEXT PROPOSAL?

Benway

Fran wrote:
> A lot of blather has been spoken about fuel watch. It's a classic
> excursion into populism, into being seen as doing something for the
> common folk when in your heart of hearts you can do bugger all. Both
> sides of politics are in a weird kind of auction to see which of them
> can be more in touch with the problems of the common man, when neither
> of them can be. This is the government we're talking about. One side
> is in power and the other wants to be.
>
> Repeated inquiries into petrol retailing have shown that in the major
> capital cities at least, there is ample competition. Retail margins
> are on average, about 4 cents per litre, which, even when petrol was a
> lot less -- about a dollar per litre -- not unreasonable. Retailing
> petrol requires investment in quite expensive to set up and maintain
> infrastructure. Because it's a hazardous material, there's extensive
> and expensive safety and environmental compliance -- and rightly so.
> There's also considerable public liability. Running petrol pumps totes
> up a power bill. So even though turnover is considerable, 4 cents per
> litre doesn't sound unfair to me, especially when you consider that
> many motorists pay be credit card.
>
> So the most one could hope fuel watch to achieve in terms of prices is
> to force margins down by some fraction of that 4 cents per litre. It
> has to be quite a bit less than that because at some point, it simply
> won't be possible to support the retailing overheads and the retailer
> will have to get out of the business. So at most it can force prices
> down to the point where the retailer thinks it will be marginally less
> expensive to him/her to keep trading than to cease. If a lot of
> traders go out of business, retail margins may improve, forcing up
> prices.
>
> So the principal benefit to the motorist probably isn't going to be
> cheaper prices. More likely it will be a shorter wait to get petrol at
> the effective mean price during the cycle. Few people like queueing
> for petrol and this process is itself wasteful of petrol. Everybody
> (except the oil companies) loses in this scenario.
>
> In the long run of course, what has to happen is a move to a transport
> system less dependent on crude oil. More diverse, better and extensive
> non-petrol-based transport has to be provided and people have to use
> it. We have to start increasing population densities in the suburbs
> rather than doing more urban sprawl. We also ought to get cracking
> with biofuels (no pun intended). We have masses of marginal land with
> waste biomass on it that we could use. We have sugar cane. We could
> raise algae. In the long run, this is what has to happen, but its 2020
> summit notwithstanding, the government really can't get past the next
> week of headlines.
>
> Fran
*********************************************
I really think that Aussies should brace themselves
for the financial reality that will soon hit them all.

George Soros on the global economy:
"I think this is probably more serious than
anything in our lifetime...

This is a period of wealth destruction.
The people who make money will be few
and far between. There will be a lot
more money lost than made.

As a hedge fund manager, I do not claim
to be serving the public interest. I am
in the business to make money"

*******************************

Polly the Parrot

On Wed, 28 May 2008 20:11:29 +1000 "Lu R" <who me@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry but I dont agree with even MORE higher density housing. If I
> wanted to live in Hong Kong Id move there..

But we want you to live there.

NEXT PROPOSAL?

Move there, NOW.

Lu R

"Polly the Parrot" <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:20080528201613.549a305f@linux-k6os.site...
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 20:11:29 +1000 "Lu R" <who me@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry but I dont agree with even MORE higher density housing. If I
>> wanted to live in Hong Kong Id move there..
>
> But we want you to live there.
>
> NEXT PROPOSAL?
>
> Move there, NOW.

Get back on your perch shitforbrains..Im more than happy to give YOU the
shits right here...lol

Polly the Parrot

On Wed, 28 May 2008 20:28:15 +1000 "Lu R" <who me@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Get back on your perch shitforbrains..Im more than happy to give YOU
> the shits right here...lol


You don't give me the shits, Lu child.

You amuse me.

Does Mommy & Daddy think you are doing your homework while you lock
yourself in your room and surf for porn?

the fonz

On May 28, 88*pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Retail margins are on average, about 4 cents per litre,
> which, even when petrol was a lot less -- about a
> dollar per litre -- not unreasonable.

but retail is not where the price gouging is occurring. the rip-off
occurs at the wholesale end. Caltex's share price has risen from about
85c to $26 between 2001 and 2008. that pretty much says it all really.

it's a bit of an open secret that the oil majors collude on price. you
would have to be a very optimistic and naive person to believe they
don't. there is such a restricted supply of petroleum that it prevents
the application of normal market forces necessary to produce
sufficient competition and downward pressure on prices.

GrassyNoel

On May 28, 7:17 pm, the fonz <arthur.fonzzare...@gmail.com> wrote:

> it's a bit of an open secret that the oil majors collude on price. you
> would have to be a very optimistic and naive person to believe they
> don't. there is such a restricted supply of petroleum that it prevents
> the application of normal market forces necessary to produce
> sufficient competition and downward pressure on prices.

I think some action by government to outlaw the established 'price
cycle' would be great. I'm amazed no-one in government has spoken out
against it. But I do think FuelWatch dampens it down a bit. I think
prices vary less during the week than before FuelWatch, but I don't
think it has led to prices being lower than they would otherwise be.

Fran

On May 28, 8:11*pm, "Lu R" <who m...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8f060e95-f730-40db-921f-318518745c2f@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >A lot of blather has been spoken about fuel watch. It's a classic
> > excursion into populism, into being seen as doing something for the
> > common folk when in your heart of hearts you can do bugger all. Both
> > sides of politics are in a weird kind of auction to see which of them
> > can be more in touch with the problems of the common man, when neither
> > of them can be. This is the government we're talking about. One side
> > is in power and the other wants to be.
>
> > Repeated inquiries into petrol retailing have shown that in the major
> > capital cities at least, there is ample competition. Retail margins
> > are on average, about 4 cents per litre, which, even when petrol was a
> > lot less -- about a dollar per litre -- not unreasonable. Retailing
> > petrol requires investment in quite expensive to set up and maintain
> > infrastructure. Because it's a hazardous material, there's extensive
> > and expensive safety and environmental compliance -- and rightly so.
> > There's also considerable public liability. Running petrol pumps totes
> > up a power bill. So even though turnover is considerable, 4 cents per
> > litre doesn't sound unfair to me, especially when you consider that
> > many motorists pay be credit card.
>
> > So the most one could hope fuel watch to achieve in terms of prices is
> > to force margins down by some fraction of that 4 cents per litre. It
> > has to be quite a bit less than that because at some point, it simply
> > won't be possible to support the retailing overheads and the retailer
> > will have to get out of the business. So at most it can force prices
> > down to the point where the retailer thinks it will be marginally less
> > expensive to him/her to keep trading than to cease. *If a lot of
> > traders go out of business, retail margins may improve, forcing up
> > prices.
>
> > So the principal benefit to the motorist probably isn't going to be
> > cheaper prices. More likely it will be a shorter wait to get petrol at
> > the effective mean price during the cycle. Few people like queueing
> > for petrol and this process is itself wasteful of petrol. Everybody
> > (except the oil companies) loses in this scenario.
>
> > In the long run of course, what has to happen is a move to a transport
> > system less dependent on crude oil. More diverse, better and extensive
> > non-petrol-based transport has to be provided and people have to use
> > it. We have to start increasing population densities in the suburbs
> > rather than doing more urban sprawl. We also ought to get cracking
> > with biofuels (no pun intended). We have masses of marginal land with
> > waste biomass on it that we could use. We have sugar cane. We could
> > raise algae. In the long run, this is what has to happen, but its 2020
> > summit notwithstanding, *the government really can't get past the next
> > week of headlines.
>
> > Fran
>
> Sorry but I dont agree with even MORE higher density housing. If I wanted to
> live in Hong Kong Id move there..NEXT PROPOSAL?

That's as may be. Most people don't like spending 15 hours plus per
week commuting and paying for the privilege. That's enough time to be
a serious factor in your child's life, party with your significant
other, have a second job, write that novel you always dreamed of or
simply put your feet up and do bugger all.

Yet this is what those years of cheap petrol have predisposed --
suburbs 25 miles out of town where you can build houses that cost a
fortune to heat and where you need a car to go anywhere important and
where when interest rates go up you're stuck between the proverbial
rock and a hard place. If you'd sold your soul to the devil it would
be a moral tale, but as it stands it's just banal and rather sad.

And it's wrecking the planet ...

Fran

atec77

Fran wrote:
> On May 28, 8:11 pm, "Lu R" <who m...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> That's as may be. Most people don't like spending 15 hours plus per
> week commuting and paying for the privilege.
which is why most take work closer to home , after all the word is
workers are hard to find
That's enough time to be
> a serious factor in your child's life, party with your significant
> other, have a second job, write that novel you always dreamed of or
> simply put your feet up and do bugger all.
or simply ignore because you are wrong in many cases
>
> Yet this is what those years of cheap petrol have predisposed --
political bullshite to follow > frans rant
> suburbs 25 miles out of town where you can build houses that cost a
> fortune to heat

not according to the rules which have been in place for years
and where you need a car to go anywhere important
agree , but then labor has failed on a state and coucil level for
years to alter this situation preferring instead to wind fees to silly
level instead of directing the developers to organise suitable transport
and centres
and
> where when interest rates go up you're stuck between the proverbial
> rock and a hard place.
only if you bite off to much , those of use whoown property have no
problem
If you'd sold your soul to the devil it would
> be a moral tale, but as it stands it's just banal and rather sad.
yes you are boring
>
> And it's wrecking the planet ...
wrong again , it's speeding it but considering we are on a cooling cycle
>
> Fran
>
>